金剛般若疏 1.18

1.18

第九、釋章段。此經文約理玄釋者，鮮得其意，致使科段烟塵紛穢，遂令般若日月翳而不明。今粗列眾師以示其得失。原夫大聖屬緣吐教，意令表筌悟實，其旨則不在文字，希得意之徒領其要歸其所寄也。自北土相承，流支三藏具開經作十二分釋：一者、序分；二者、護念付屬分；三者、住分；四者、修行分；五者、法身非有為分；六者、信者分；七者、格量分；八者、顯性分；九者、利益分；十者、斷疑分；十一者、不住道分；十二者、流通分。夫大聖說法，必有由致，故有序分。將說大法，必為諸菩薩，已悟之徒則須加被，未悟之者付屬已悟，故有第二護念付屬。既護念付屬，令其住般若中，故有第三住分。雖得住立，更進修諸行，故次有第四修行分也。以修無得之因，故得無為之果，故次明法身非有為分。說此因果，必有信受之人，故次須明信者分。信持則功德無邊，故須明格量分。持說之人所以功德無邊，必由佛性，若不識於佛性，則無此功德，故有顯性分也。以依佛性所修功德利益無窮，故須明利益分也。上來一周說法，利根已悟，中下未了，更復生疑，故有第十斷疑分。疑心既除，則無所依住，故有第十一不住道分。此之大法，非止益現在，亦利益未來，故有第十二流通分也。然分雖十二，不出因果，統其始末，凡有四周：護念付屬至修行分，此則明因法身非有為分，斯則辨果益，是一周明因果也。次從信者分至于格量，此則為因，感得顯性之果，此則次周明因果也。既明佛性，依性之修行即因義，有因故得果，即利益分，謂三周明因果也。斷疑為因，不住道為果，則四周明因果也。然此之解釋盛行北地，世代相承，多歷年序，而稟學之徒莫不承信。余鑽仰累年載，意謂不然。今請問之，此十二分為出般若經文？為是婆藪論釋？今所觀經論悉無斯意，蓋是人情自穿鑿耳。渾沌之絞絡，良弊於此也。問：作此分文，有何過失，而汝非之？答：其妨甚多，不可具載。今略題數過，以示其通塞也。一者、作此分文，則不識經之通別。所以者何？至如序分則通序一經，如護念付屬等十分，此是正說中之別段。云何取經之通文，以例正說之別段？斯則失之大矣。又且汝云：從大千珍寶至捨恒沙身命，名格量分。此則未識經始終，故有斯謬耳。所以者何？此中格量凡舉內外兩施，外施則有三千之與恒沙。內施之中亦有二種：一者、直捨恒沙身施；二者、次舉日三時捨恒沙身施。此方盡格量之極。汝何故但取前三種為格量分，而不取三時捨身為格量分？是以為失。又且論云「從法身非有為分已來，竝是斷疑」，汝云何獨取須菩提重問已去為斷疑分？又且此經有兩周之說，經論竝作斯判，汝何故取前周之說以開多分、取後周之說合為一分？抑大為小，患之甚也。又流通實是大章，還依小段之例，亦所不可。其間碎分章句，爰至異言語目，於經論竝穢，至文當具顯之。復有人言：十二分開之，既其難解，取其易見，裁為六章。六章者：一、序分；二、護念付屬分；三、住分；四、修行分；五、斷疑分；六、流通分。此之分別，蓋是學之劣者，過還同前，而患復更甚。所以者何？若言後同是斷疑分，就斷疑中不復更開，附前亦是同非斷疑，不斷疑中亦應不開。不斷疑中有種種義，既開多分，斷疑之中何因緣故取為分？若爾，塗行乞食應是一分。若使塗行乞食既屬序分而不開者，護念、付屬屬正說亦應不開。又元前解之與後釋，都不識論文之大體。所以者何？論主直是釋其難文，略其易句，云何後人見論解釋，便取為科段？復有人注金剛般若開三門：從如是我聞至願樂欲聞是因緣門，謂具此因緣故得說般若。從佛告應如是降伏至見諸相非相，明般若體門。從白佛頗有眾生下，明功德門。然此解釋，義亦不盡。流通復屬何門？又復後周重說，又屬何門？有人言：開為三段：一者、序說；二者、正說；三者、流通說。大聖說法，必有由漸，故有序說；序說既竟，正宗宜開，故有正說；非唯近益當時，亦乃遠被來葉，故有流通說。今謂三說開經，於理無妨，但開善之流，不識三說起盡，故復為失。所以者何？至如序文取善吉之問，為歎請序；如來之答始屬正經，此事為謬。然一切經，若問若答，皆悉是正，云何以問為序、以答為正？《大涅槃經》時會獻供為序，純陀請受問難即以為正；此經塗行乞食以之為序，善吉發問即應是正。大品亦然，如來廣現神變以之為序，告舍利弗即以為正。斯事易明，不應濫也。又且三說無定，雖序說不妨有正，雖正說不妨有序，流通亦爾。何者？以序於正，故名為序；以正於序，故名為正。正說悟道，既得是正；序說悟道，亦得是正。今但約一往方言，故開三不同耳。就此三中，各開二段。序有二者：一、通序；二者、別序。正文有二：第一周、廣說；第二周、略說。流通有二：一、序佛說經究竟；二者、明時眾歡喜奉行。序中二段，凡有四雙：一者、通；二者、別。通以同為義，眾經六事悉同，故名通序。別以異為義，眾經各異，或父母送書、或長者獻蓋、或天雨四華、或塗行乞食，故名別序。次雙證信序、發起序者，安此六事，令人生信，故名證信序。塗行乞食，發起正經，名發起序。次雙遺教序與現前序，明如來將入泥曰，阿難心沒憂海，不能自喻。阿泥樓馳云：「汝是持佛法藏人，所應問者，須及時問。」於是阿難作於四問，最後問云：「一切經初置何等語？」佛言：「一切經初當安如是我聞。」遺言令安此六事，故名遺教序。現說經時，即有乞食等事，名現前序。次雙經前序、經後序。說經竟後方有如是六事，名經後序。說經之前，有乞食之事，名經前序。問曰：佛何因緣故，一切經初令安六事？答曰：為證信故。《大智論》云「說時、方、人，令人生信故。」復次，一切外道皆以吉法貫在經初，故《百論》云「諸師作經簡，初皆說吉。」今欲簡異外道故，故貫以六事。問曰：若安六事異外道者，外道亦言安此六事，何以簡耶？答曰：明此是般若六事，故以證信、簡異外道。般若信者，此是無依無得之信，故《大品》云「不信一切法，名為信般若。」一切法不生，故名為般若生；不信一切法，故名信般若也。

Ninth, explaining the sections. The text of this sūtra is concise and its principle profound; those who explain it rarely grasp its meaning, causing the sectional divisions to become as turbulent as smoke and dust, which has ultimately obscured the sun and moon of prajñā so that it does not shine brightly. Now I shall roughly list the various masters' views to show their strengths and weaknesses. In general, when the Great Sage produced the teachings in accordance with conditions, his intention was to use the trap [of words] to bring realization of reality; the essential meaning does not lie in the letters, and one hopes that those who grasp the meaning will take up its essential source and return to that to which it points. In the tradition transmitted in the northern lands, the Tripiṭaka [master] Bodhiruci fully divided the sūtra into twelve sections for explanation: first, the Introductory Section; second, the Section on Mindful Protection and Entrustment; third, the Section on Abiding; fourth, the Section on Cultivation; fifth, the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned; sixth, the Section on the Faithful; seventh, the Section on Comparative Evaluation; eighth, the Section on Revealing the Nature; ninth, the Section on Benefits; tenth, the Section on Severing Doubts; eleventh, the Section on the Path of Non-abiding; twelfth, the Section on Dissemination. When the Great Sage expounds the Dharma, there must be a cause and occasion, hence there is the Introductory Section. As he is about to expound the great Dharma, it must be for the sake of the bodhisattvas; those who have already awakened require empowerment, and those who have not yet awakened are entrusted to those who have already awakened; hence second there is Mindful Protection and Entrustment. Having provided mindful protection and entrustment, he causes them to abide in prajñā; hence third there is the Section on Abiding. Although they have attained stability, they must further advance in cultivating all practices; hence fourth there is next the Section on Cultivation. Because they cultivate the cause of non-attainment, they attain the unconditioned fruit; hence next is clarified the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned. In expounding this cause and fruit, there must be people who have faith and receive it; hence next must be clarified the Section on the Faithful. In faithfully upholding it, the merit is boundless; hence the Section on Comparative Evaluation must be clarified. The reason why the merit of the person who upholds and expounds it is boundless must be due to the Buddha-nature; if one does not recognize the Buddha-nature, there is no such merit; hence there is the Section on Revealing the Nature. Because the merit cultivated in reliance on the Buddha-nature has inexhaustible benefits, the Section on Benefits must be clarified. In the preceding single round of expounding the Dharma, those of sharp faculties have already awakened, but those of middling and lower faculties have not yet understood and give rise to doubts anew; hence tenth there is the Section on Severing Doubts. Once the doubting mind is eliminated, there is nowhere to rely or abide; hence eleventh there is the Section on the Path of Non-abiding. This great Dharma does not merely benefit the present, but also benefits the future; hence twelfth there is the Section on Dissemination. Although there are twelve sections, they do not go beyond cause and fruit; summarizing from beginning to end, there are altogether four cycles: from Mindful Protection and Entrustment to the Section on Cultivation, this clarifies the cause; the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned, this discerns the fruit—this is one cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Next, from the Section on the Faithful to Comparative Evaluation, this constitutes the cause, which evokes the fruit of revealing the nature—this is the next cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Having clarified the Buddha-nature, cultivation in reliance on the nature is the meaning of cause, and because there is a cause one attains the fruit, which is the Section on Benefits—this is the third cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Severing doubts is the cause, and the path of non-abiding is the fruit—this is the fourth cycle clarifying cause and fruit. However, this explanation was widely popular in the northern lands and handed down generation after generation over many years, and among students none failed to accept it in faith. I have scrutinized and contemplated it for many years, and in my view it is not so. Let me now ask: do these twelve sections come from the text of the Prajñā Sūtra, or are they from Vasubandhu's treatise? What we see now in the sūtra and treatise contains no such intention whatsoever; it is merely the contrived speculation of human contrivance. The muddled entanglement of primeval chaos is truly afflicted by this. Question: What fault is there in making these divisions that you reject it? Answer: Its impediments are exceedingly many, beyond recording in full. Now I shall briefly state several faults to show its valid and invalid points. First, in making these divisions, one fails to recognize the general and specific parts of the sūtra. Why so? The Introductory Section serves as the general preface to the entire sūtra, whereas the ten sections such as Mindful Protection and Entrustment are specific divisions within the main teaching. How can one take the general text of a sūtra as parallel to the specific divisions of the main teaching? This is a great error. Furthermore, you say: from the jewels of the great thousandfold world to relinquishing bodily life equal to the sands of the Ganges, this is called the Section on Comparative Evaluation. This stems from failing to recognize the beginning and end of the sūtra, hence this error arises. Why is this? The comparative evaluation here generally adduces two kinds of giving: external and internal. External giving includes that of the three thousand[fold world] and the sands of the Ganges. Internal giving also has two kinds: first, directly giving by relinquishing bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges; second, next adducing the giving of relinquishing bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges at three times of the day. Only here does it reach the utmost of comparative evaluation. Why do you take only the former three kinds as the Section on Comparative Evaluation, and not take relinquishing the body at the three times of the day as the Section on Comparative Evaluation? This is why it is an error. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'From the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned onward, all of it severs doubts.' Why do you take solely from Subhūti's asking again onward as the Section on Severing Doubts? Furthermore, this sūtra has an exposition of two cycles; both the sūtra and the treatise make this determination. Why do you take the exposition of the earlier cycle to divide into many sections, and take the exposition of the later cycle to collapse into a single section? Suppressing the large to make it small is an extreme defect. Moreover, Dissemination is truly a major section, yet to make it follow the pattern of a minor division is likewise unacceptable. The fragmented divisions of phrases and lines therein, extending to disparate terms and headings, defile both sūtra and treatise; when we arrive at the text, I shall demonstrate this in full. Another person says: since dividing it into twelve sections is difficult to understand, one should take what is easily seen and cut it into six chapters. The six chapters are: 1. Introductory Section; 2. Section on Mindful Protection and Entrustment; 3. Section on Abiding; 4. Section on Cultivation; 5. Section on Severing Doubts; 6. Section on Dissemination. This division is merely from an inferior student; the faults remain the same as before, and the defects are even worse. Why is this? If one says that the latter part is collectively the Section on Severing Doubts and does not divide it further within severing doubts, then following the earlier part which is also collectively not severing doubts, within what is not severing doubts one should likewise not make divisions. Within what is not severing doubts there are various meanings, and since one divides it into many sections, for what reason within severing doubts does one take it as [only one] section? If that were so, traveling the road to beg for food should be a single section. If traveling the road to beg for food belongs to the introductory section and is not divided, then mindful protection and entrustment, belonging to the main teaching, should likewise not be divided. Moreover, neither the former explanation nor the latter interpretation understands the overall structure of the treatise text. Why is this? The author of the treatise simply explained its difficult passages and omitted its easy phrases; how could later people, seeing the treatise's explanations, immediately take them as sectional divisions? Another person, in commenting on the Diamond Prajñā, established three gates: from 'Thus have I heard' to 'we wish and desire to hear' is the Gate of Causes and Conditions, meaning that possessing these causes and conditions allows prajñā to be expounded. From the Buddha telling him, 'One should thus subdue...' to 'seeing all marks as non-marks' clarifies the Gate of the Essence of Prajñā. From [Subhūti] addressing the Buddha, 'Could there be sentient beings...' downward clarifies the Gate of Merits. However, this interpretation also does not exhaust the meaning. To which gate would Dissemination belong? Furthermore, to which gate would the repetition in the later cycle belong? Someone says: it is divided into three sections: first, the Introductory Exposition; second, the Main Exposition; third, the Dissemination Exposition. When the Great Sage expounds the Dharma, there must be an origin and progression, hence there is the Introductory Exposition; the Introductory Exposition being concluded, the main principle should be opened, hence there is the Main Exposition; not only does it directly benefit the present time, but it also reaches far to future generations, hence there is the Dissemination Exposition. I now consider that dividing the sūtra into three expositions presents no hindrance in principle, but the likes of Kaishan do not understand the beginning and end of the three expositions, which is again an error. Why is this? When it comes to the introductory text, taking Subhūti's question as the preface of praise and request, and the Tathāgata's answer as the beginning of the main sūtra, this is mistaken. In all sūtras, whether question or answer, both are entirely the main teaching; how can one take the question as introduction and the answer as the main teaching? In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the assembly presenting offerings is the introduction, and Cunda's request and questioning are taken as the main teaching; in this sūtra, traveling the road to beg for food is taken as the introduction, and Subhūti raising the question should immediately be the main teaching. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is likewise: the Tathāgata's extensive manifestation of supernatural transformations is taken as the introduction, and addressing Śāriputra is taken as the main teaching. This matter is easy to understand and should not be confused. Furthermore, the three expositions are not fixed: although it is an introductory exposition, it does not prevent there being main teaching; although it is a main exposition, it does not prevent there being introduction; dissemination is likewise. Why? Because it introduces the main teaching, it is called introduction; because it is the main teaching relative to the introduction, it is called the main teaching. If awakening to the Path occurs in the main exposition, it can be the main teaching; if awakening to the Path occurs in the introductory exposition, it can also be the main teaching. Here, we merely speak provisionally from one perspective, hence dividing it into three differently. Within these three, each is divided into two sections. The introduction has two: first, the general introduction; second, the specific introduction. The main text has two: the first cycle, extensive exposition; the second cycle, brief exposition. Dissemination has two: first, setting forth that the Buddha has concluded expounding the sūtra; second, clarifying that the assembly rejoiced and practiced accordingly. In the two sections of the introduction, there are four pairs in all: first, general and specific. 'General' has the meaning of commonality: the six items across all sūtras are completely identical, hence it is called the general introduction. 'Specific' has the meaning of difference: across all sūtras they are each different, whether parents sending a letter, an elder offering a parasol, the gods raining four kinds of flowers, or traveling the road to beg for food; hence it is called the specific introduction. Next is the pair of the Introduction of Attestation of Faith and the Initiating Introduction: establishing these six items causes people to generate faith, hence it is called the Introduction of Attestation of Faith. Traveling the road to beg for food initiates the main sūtra, hence it is called the Initiating Introduction. Next is the pair of the Testamentary Teaching Introduction and the Present Introduction: clarifying that when the Tathāgata was about to enter nirvāṇa, Ānanda's mind was submerged in an ocean of grief and could not comfort himself. Aniruddha said: 'You are the keeper of the Buddha's treasury of Dharma; what ought to be asked must be asked in time.' Thereupon Ānanda posed four questions, the last of which was: 'What words should be placed at the beginning of all sūtras?' The Buddha said: 'At the beginning of all sūtras, one should place: "Thus have I heard..."' His testamentary words instructed that these six items be established, hence it is called the Testamentary Teaching Introduction. At the time of currently expounding the sūtra, there were events such as begging for food, hence it is called the Present Introduction. Next is the pair of the Pre-Sūtra Introduction and the Post-Sūtra Introduction: only after the expounding of the sūtra was concluded were there such six items, hence it is called the Post-Sūtra Introduction. Prior to expounding the sūtra, there was the matter of begging for food, hence it is called the Pre-Sūtra Introduction. Question: For what reason did the Buddha order that the six items be placed at the beginning of all sūtras? Answer: To attest faith. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Expounding the time, place, and persons causes people to give rise to faith.' Furthermore, all non-Buddhists string auspicious formulas at the beginning of their treatises; hence the Śataśāstra states: 'When various teachers compose scriptures and tablets, at the beginning all speak of the auspicious.' Now, wishing to distinguish from non-Buddhists, [sūtras] are strung with the six items. Question: If establishing the six items distinguishes from non-Buddhists, but non-Buddhists also claim to establish these six items, how does one distinguish them? Answer: Clarifying that these are the six items of prajñā serves to attest faith and distinguish from non-Buddhists. The faith of prajñā is faith of non-reliance and non-attainment; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: 'Not having faith in all dharmas is called having faith in prajñā.' Because all dharmas do not arise, it is called the arising of prajñā; because one does not have faith in all dharmas, it is called having faith in prajñā.